Wikileaks Galvanizing Neo-Conservatism?

elbe said:
That article demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of how the internet works. Not surprising for people who think censorship is a way to pacify the US population.
Click to expand...

Are there significant groups who regularly consider the subject of pacifying the US population?
 
TShaitanaku said:
Are there significant groups who regularly consider the subject of pacifying the US population?
Click to expand...

Conspiracy nuts seem to, but personally I find making more entertainment available is better to pacify a population than cutting it down.
 
elbe said:
That article demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of how the internet works. Not surprising for people who think censorship is a way to pacify the US population.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

You asked for evidence that the US wants to control the Internet, not evidence that it can.
 
JihadJane said:
Irrelevant.

You asked for evidence that the US wants to control the Internet, not evidence that it can.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even support that. When they don't understand what they're even talking about it's hard to make out that it's evidence that the US wants to censor the internet.
 
Whiplash said:
*bolding mine*

This is SO naive. All of you who remain convinced that the Intenet will be a bastion of untouchable speech for all eternity. Truly naive. Rather shocking really.
Click to expand...

Why? I have more faith in a 16 year old's ability to circumvent anything the gov't can do.


Who said for all eternity?
 
Last edited:
elbe said:
It doesn't even support that. When they don't understand what they're even talking about it's hard to make out that it's evidence that the US wants to censor the internet.
Click to expand...

It seems that you may be suffering from confirmation bias!


For example the article asserts: "In May 2009, Microsoft announced on its website that they would turn off the Windows Live Messenger service for Cuba, Syria, Iran, Sudan and North Korea, in accordance with US legislation."

Are the authors mistaken?
 
JihadJane said:
It seems that you may be suffering from confirmation bias!


For example the article asserts: "In May 2009, Microsoft announced on its website that they would turn off the Windows Live Messenger service for Cuba, Syria, Iran, Sudan and North Korea, in accordance with US legislation."

Are the authors mistaken?
Click to expand...

No, that happened. You're analysis of what that means, however, is severely distorted.

The US had sanctions on all of those nations which, by US law, forbid US companies from doing business in them. Microsoft, being a US company, had to comply and stop their service in that country. Whether you agree with the sanctions is irrelevant, it's just the way it is, but it wasn't an act by the US to "censor" the internet.
 
Whiplash said:
*bolding mine*

This is SO naive. All of you who remain convinced that the Intenet will be a bastion of untouchable speech for all eternity. Truly naive. Rather shocking really.
Click to expand...

It still is. Even the authoritarian Chinese regime has been unable to censor the internet from a population that constantly employs proxies and filter evasions changed names, directly typing the IP address, etc). Nothing can stop the free flow of information except for having little to no networked computers to the outside world (like in North Korea)

That is why even today CP, Phishing sites, Classified information and so on can still be accessed despite being illegal in most places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom